abstract - artiekonrad.com€¦ · web viewartie konrad. facebook. susan c. herring* indiana...

1STICKER AND EMOJI USE IN FACEBOOK MESSENGER

Sticker and Emoji Use in Facebook Messenger: Implications for Graphicon Change

Artie Konrad

Facebook

Susan C. Herring*

Indiana University Bloomington

David Choi

Facebook

Abstract

This study posits that graphicon use follows an evolutionary trajectory characterized by

stages. Drawing on evidence that the uses and functions of emoticons have changed over

time and that the introduction of emoji affected the popularity and usage of emoticons,

we examine the uses of the newer types, emoji and stickers, and consider the relationship

of stickers to emoji. Adapting the apparent-time method from the sociolinguistic study of

language change, we compare sticker and emoji use by English-speaking Facebook

Messenger users, exploring how they are used and under what conditions using semi-

structured interviews and a large-scale survey. Stickers are argued to be more

pragmatically marked for emotional intensity, positivity, and intimacy, characteristic of a

more recent stage of evolution, while emoji use exhibits signs of conventionalization and

pragmatic unmarking. The identification of patterns that characterize evolutionary stages

has implications for future graphicon use.

Keywords

Emoji; emoticons; evolution; instant messaging; sociolinguistic; motivations; stickers

* Direct correspondence to [email protected]


Sticker and emoji use in Facebook Messenger: Implications for graphicon change

Since its introduction in the early 1970s, textual computer-mediated communication has

been enriched by graphical icons (henceforth graphicons1) that express emotion and attitude.

These have been introduced and adopted in successive waves, from emoticons (sideways faces

typed in ASCII characters), emoji (designed, like emoticons, to facilitate emotion expression in

text-based conversation, but visually richer, more expressive, and more complex), and, more

recently, stickers (larger, more elaborate, character-driven illustrations or animations to which

text is sometimes attached). Each wave has brought more varied and elaborate icons. At the same

time, some continuity has been maintained, in that the core members of each set are

representations of facial expressions associated with affect, such as smiles, laughs, winks, and

frowns, and of nonverbal gestures, such as waving, kissing, and sticking out one’s tongue (Figure

1).

As with verbal language, graphicon use appears to change dynamically over time. ASCII

emoticons have evolved new uses since the 1970s. From expressing emotion, they came to

indicate the illocutionary force or the intended tone of textual utterances (Dresner & Herring,

2010), and now mostly function like punctuation (Markman & Oshima, 2007; Provine, Spencer,

& Mandell, 2007). In this study we ask: Are the uses and functions of the newer types, emoji and

stickers, also evolving? If so, does their evolution resemble that for emoticons? Moreover, the

popularity and usage of emoticons has been affected by the rise of its successor, emoji

(Pavalanathan & Eisenstein, 2016). Therefore, we also ask about the relationship of stickers to

emoji. Might sticker use eventually eclipse the popularity that emoji currently enjoy? To address

these questions, we adopt an evolutionary trajectory approach, which views changes over time as


being on a trajectory characterized by stages. Specifically, we posit the existence of an

overarching evolutionary trajectory according to which newer graphicon types overtake older

types in popularity and partially displace them over time. In this process, graphicon uses and

functions also shift.

There is suggestive evidence of graphicon displacement taking place already. Emoji are

often referred to as the new generation of emoticons (e.g., Novak et al., 2015). They are used

more frequently than emoticons on social media (Pavalanathan & Eisenstein, 2016; Prada et al.,

2018), and they are replacing emoticons in their illocutionary force and tone marking functions

(Herring & Dainas, 2017). Analogously, Jezouit (2017) claims that “stickers are the new emoji.”

They are already as popular as emoji in East Asia, if not more popular (O’Donoghue, 2016).

However, less is known about the reception and use of stickers in Western countries. This article

addresses this gap from a historical comparative perspective, comparing stickers and emoji. In

interpreting this comparison, we draw on literature that compares emoji with their predecessor,

ASCII emoticons.

It would be possible in principle to investigate the evolving relationship between emoji and

stickers in the West by collecting longitudinal data dating back to the introduction of each

graphicon type. However, a number of challenges inhere in such an approach. Much graphicon-

rich CMC is nonpublic and/or ephemeral, and hence difficult to access. Moreover, information

about users’ motivations and contexts of use are typically lacking in historical data, and social

motivations play an important role in behavioral change. In this study we adopt an alternative,

synchronic approach adapted from sociolinguistic studies of language change (e.g., Labov, 1963,

1972). “Apparent time studies” (Bailey, 2002) infer evidence of change-in-progress from

patterns of language use and speakers’ attitudes in present time. Usage patterns, speaker attitudes


toward linguistic forms, and characteristics of the forms themselves can provide evidence that

change is occurring and where it is heading (Milroy & Milroy, 1985).

Adapting this approach for graphicons, in this study we interview and survey emoji and

sticker users about their current use of, and attitudes toward, emoji and stickers and make

inferences about change-in-progress. In support of these inferences, we compare our findings

with documented patterns of past change (cf. Labov, 1972) in the relationship between ASCII

emoticons and emoji, on the assumption that there are parallels between that relationship and the

relationship between emoji and stickers. As further support, we invoke contemporary graphicon

use in Asia, where sticker adoption is more advanced than in the West.

Our analysis is focused on the relationship between sticker and emoji use by English-

speaking Facebook Messenger users. Messenger is an ideal platform for the purposes of this

comparison, in that it offers free e-stickers for users to download and use in chat sessions, in

addition to a wide array of emoji. Morever, with over one billion active users and availability in

more than 40 languages, Messenger is one of the most popular messaging apps worldwide

(Statista, 2019). Emoji have been available for use on Facebook since their incorporation into

mobile phone apps around 2010, and stickers were enabled in Messenger in 2013 and on the

web-based platform one year later (Flynn, 2014). We compare and contrast stickers and emoji in

Messenger by exploring how they are used, who sends them, and under what conditions they are

sent (in what moods and to which types of recipients). Toward this end, we present qualitative

data from 13 semi-structured interviews and quantitative data from a survey of 2275 users who

send stickers and emoji. We ask, to what extent do stickers and emoji share functions or differ,

and how is each being used? Is it possible to infer evidence of ongoing evolution based on

present usage? If so, how likely are stickers to eventually displace emoji in popularity among


English-speaking CMC users? To help address these questions, we draw parallels between trends

in Messenger graphicon use, phases in style evolution, and processes of linguistic change.

Background

Evolution and language change

Evolutionary trajectories that involve changes in both frequency of use and meaning have

been described for artistic styles (Schmid-Isler, 2000) and language change (Haiman, 1991).

These domains can be related to graphicons, which have both aesthetic and communicative

aspects.

According to Schmid-Isler (2000, n.p.), “art history distinguishes three style phases: the

division of an epoch style into its beginning, which is called the archaic or early phase, its high

peak, which is called the classic or high phase, and its fall, which is called its decline or

mannerism phase.” Although the parallel is not exact, the concept that a historical course is

marked by succeeding phases of inception, growth, and decline might be applied to graphicons.

We might speak of an early or novelty phase, in which a new type of graphicon is introduced and

adopted; a high phase, in which the graphicon proliferates and enjoys popularity; and a

conventionalization phase, in which it becomes mundane and takes on new qualities. We will

argue that stickers, emoji, and emoticons, respectively, broadly represent these three phases in

the Western world.

As for meaning changes, historical linguists have shown that the meanings of words change

over time in predictable ways, including through processes of semantic bleaching, broadening,

and conventionalization (Burling, 1999; Haiman, 1991). Semantic bleaching is the loss of

specific semantic content, such that only a word’s more general or abstract content is retained

(Haiman, 1991). Words expressing strong emotions are especially susceptible to bleaching over


time, due to people’s tendency to exaggerate (i.e. “awfully”, “terribly”, “love”) (Jurafsky, 2014).

Relatedly, the meaning of a word may broaden, or go from describing a narrow set of ideas to

describing a broad range of them (Haiman, 1991). An example is the word ‘thing,’ which

generalized from meaning ‘a public assembly’ in Old English to ‘an entity of any kind’ in

Modern English (Radford et al., 2009). Last, conventionalization is a process whereby signs

evolve from being motivated (e.g., iconic), to becoming more and more conventional, sometimes

to the point where the relationship of meaning to form appears arbitrary. Conventionalization

was involved in the historical emergence of signed languages for the deaf, for example; gestures

that directly imitated actions became more arbitrary and symbolic with repeated use (Burling,

1999).

Increasingly it is recognized that graphicons (especially emoji) have language-like

properties and can substitute for words (e.g., Danesi, 2016), as evidenced by Oxford

Dictionaries’ choice of an emoji as their 2015 ‘word of the year.’2 We will argue that emoticons,

emoji, and stickers show evidence of bleaching, broadening, and conventionalization to varying

degrees depending on the evolutionary phase they are in. However, rather than taking place at

the level of semantics, or individual graphicon meaning, these meaning changes are occurring at

the level of pragmatic function — that is, in how each graphicon type is used.

Social mechanisms of change

Variationist sociolinguists study language change in present time by taking into account the

linguistic and the social embedding of observed changes, with the aim of identifying possible

social motivations for the changes (Milroy & Milroy, 1985). Social correlates of language

change include the speaker’s relationships with others (their social network) and the speaker’s


attitude toward the variables undergoing change (e.g., whether the variable enjoys prestige in the

community of users) (Labov, 1972).

As regards social distance, changes are transmitted widely through weak-tie social

networks (Milroy & Milroy, 1985) – that is, via acquaintances rather than intimates – because

weak ties bridge between cohesive groups. However, changes often originate in close, strong-tie

relationships. We expect emotional language features, including graphicons, to be used in the

latter (e.g., Prada et al., 2018), although the weak-tie nature of the internet certainly facilitates

their spread. Finally, as regards speaker attitudes, an innovation must enjoy prestige in order to

spread (Milroy & Milroy, 1985), although what counts as prestigious varies across contexts.

While graphicon use might be viewed as childish and inappropriate in a formal written

document, Facebook actively supports use of a variety of graphicons; thus we expect Messenger

user attitudes toward emoji and stickers to be generally positive. In this study, we draw broadly

on the concepts of social distance and user attitudes in comparing emoji and stickers.

Graphicons

To understand the relationship between emoji and stickers, it is instructive to consider the

relationship of emoticons to emoji, since similar evolutionary forces may be at work.

Emoticons. Sideways faces typed in ASCII characters were a user innovation first

introduced in 1979 as a playful shorthand to distinguish jokes from more serious posts (Krohn,

2004). These faces were interpreted as expressing emotions such as happiness and sadness, hence

they were labelled emoticons (=emote or emotion+icons).3 Widely hailed as compensating for the

lack of prosodic and gestural cues in textual CMC (Ganster et al., 2012), ASCII emoticons

express emotion (Rezabek & Cochenour, 1998) and mimic nonverbal cues such as winks and

tongues sticking out that, when performed offline, conventionally signal behaviors such as


flirting and teasing (Lo, 2008). At a more abstract level, their use signals non-seriousness,

lightness, and/or humorous intent (Dresner & Herring, 2010).

Emoticon use has evolved over time, however, acquiring secondary functions. In utterance-

final position, where they usually occur, emoticons have conventionalized as markers of the

user’s communicative intent (the illocutionary force of a message; Dresner & Herring, 2010),

including emphasizing or downplaying the force of the utterance (Skovholt, Grønning, &

Kankaanranta, 2014) and marking its tone (Herring & Dainas, 2017). Illocutionary force or tone

marking is a more abstract, “bleached” function than expressing emotion and non-verbal

behavior. It also involves broadening of the emoji’s original meaning, such that a smiling face,

for example, has come to express not just happiness or a positive attitude but also pragmatic

meanings such as sincerity, mitigation, and politeness (Dresner & Herring, 2010).

Further, emoticons are conventionalizing as a system of punctuation that indicates

utterance mood, and thus are taking on a grammatical role (Dresner & Herring, 2010; Markman

& Oshima, 2007; Provine et al., 2007). The history of punctuation in the Western world involved

a reduction in the number of punctuation marks that were proposed by scribes and writers

starting in the Middle Ages to the few in widespread use today (e.g., the period, question mark,

exclamation mark) (Parkes, 2016). Similarly, the wide array of ASCII emoticons that users

creatively generated in the early days of the internet distilled over time to a handful that are used

most often – e.g., the smile, the open-mouth laugh, the frown, the wink, and the tongue sticking

out (Dresner & Herring, 2010). This reduction further parallels trends in offline language change.

Emoji. Emoji were first introduced in the late 1990s in Japan as part of NTT DoCoMo’s i-

mode mobile Internet platform (Wattention, 2015); the word means ‘picture’ (e) + ‘character’

(moji) in Japanese. Emoji attained global popularity after being incorporated into Unicode,


furthered by Apple’s support for emoji on the iPhone in 2010 (Novak et al., 2015). Designed,

like emoticons, to facilitate emotion expression in text-based conversation (Kelly & Watts, 2015;

Lu et al., 2016), emoji also substitute for non-verbal cues (Ganster et al., 2012) and influence the

tone and intended interpretation of messages (Kelly & Watts, 2015; Novak et al., 2015).

At the same time, emoji are visually richer, more expressive, and more complex than

ASCII emoticons (Herring & Dainas, 2017; Lu et al., 2016), making use of color and, in some

cases, limited motion. Emoji are also more flexible in distributional terms than emoticons; they

often appear in clusters and less often at the end of sentences (Novak et al., 2015). Functions

have also been reported for emoji that have not been reported for emoticons, such as riffing on

other graphicons and narrating sequences of events (Herring & Dainas, 2017), and to “maintain a

conversational connection; end a conversational thread; play; and create new (unique, secret)

meanings” (Kelly & Watts, 2015). Consistent with their greater vividness, Ganster et al. (2012)

found that emoji have a stronger impact than emoticons on readers’ perceptions of a writer’s

mood and commitment. Moreover, social media users evaluate emoji as more useful, interesting,

fun, easy, and informal than emoticons (Prada et al., 2018).

There is considerable evidence that emoji have displaced emoticons in popularity and use.

Internet users report using emoticons less frequently than emoji (e.g., Prada et al., 2018). In the

17 months after Twitter introduced emoji in March 2014, Pavalanathan and Eisenstein (2016)

found that emoji use increased while emoticon use dramatically decreased, leading the authors to

conclude that emoji and emoticons “are competing for the same paralinguistic role.” In a

comparative analysis of the functions of various graphicon types in Facebook comment threads,

Herring and Dainas (2017) found that emoticons and emoji mostly expressed the same functions,

especially tone marking. However, emoji were used far more frequently than emoticons (69% vs.


12% of all graphicons). Finally, some platforms, including Messenger, now automatically

translate the most common ASCII emoticons into emoji by default. There are work-arounds to

prevent this, but automatic translation has doubtless accelerated the displacement of emoticons

by emoji.

The decline over time in use of emoticons, together with the bleaching, broadening, and

conventionalization they have undergone, places them in the third phase of graphicon evolution:

decline and conventionalization. Emoji, in contrast, appear to be in the second phase: peak

popularity. Their tendency to become conventionalized as tone markers, similar to emoticons,

suggests that they are trending toward the latter part of the second phase.

Stickers. Stickers were first introduced in Japan by the Korean internet company Naver in

2011 for the Line mobile platform (Wikipedia, 2017), and they spread from there to other mobile

platforms.4 Described as “big bold emojis” (Jezouit, 2017) and “oversized cartoon-like and

character-driven emoticons” (Wang, 2016), stickers are illustrations or animations of characters

to which words or phrases are sometimes attached. The elaborate and character-driven nature of

stickers portrays body language and facial expressions more explicitly than emoji – they are

demonstrative, rather than symbolic – and the rapid rate at which stickers are being generated

offers users a great variety of ways to express their emotions, moods, and actions.

Beyond these core uses, stickers have strategic and functional uses. J. Y. Lee et al. (2016)

interviewed users in Korea and identified strategic motivations for sticker use that included self-

representation – using stickers “to express self as how one wishes to be perceived by others”;

maintenance of social status – using stickers “to adapt to others’ communicative behavior and

maintain social ties”; and impression management – using stickers “to project to others a

particular image one wishes to be perceived by – for instance, to appear courteous or witty.” The


researchers also identified functional uses of stickers such as a substitute or supplement to text,

and as greetings and closings in instant messaging conversations.

Another interview study (Zhou, Hentschel, & Kumar, 2017) asked participants in China

about their use of stickers and emoji in WeChat. The participants reported using the two

graphicon types for many of the same reasons, including to give non-verbal cues, to modify a

textual message, to send greetings on festivals and holidays, and “when they do not know what

to say.” However, several reasons motivated them to use stickers over emoji, including because

stickers better represent their personality traits and physical features, and because stickers

“embed[…] meanings that [a]re rich, subtle, and culturally relevant” (Zhou et al., 2017, p. 5).

Users also exchanged stickers to construct collaborative stories, or simply for the sake of

exchanging them. One heavy sticker user said she even sent stickers to her boss, suggestive

evidence that, for that Chinese user, the uses of stickers had generalized to workplace

environments.

One reason for the popularity of stickers in Asian countries is that Chinese, Japanese, and

Korean characters are tricky to input digitally, and stickers save text input time and effort (Ma,

2016; Russell, 2013). In the West, stickers are available on the web on Facebook, on mobile

platforms such as Messenger, iMessage, and WhatsApp, and Skype offers free e-stickers for use

in chat sessions. Still, Russell (2013, n.p.) speculates that “the appeal of stickers may be different

in Western markets, in part because Romanic alphabets are better supported on smartphones.”

Little research has reported on sticker use in Western contexts. Tagg (2015), in a case study

of immigrant communication in the UK, notes in passing that “Stickers in Viber are used both by

themselves to convey a message and alongside other semiotic modes, chiefly language. [They]

can be used to fulfill a range of functions: to add an element of fun, convey emotion, or make a


point, [such as when a] sticker serves as a ‘nudge’ to prompt a response” (pp. 25-26). In their

study of Facebook comment threads, Herring and Dainas (2017) found that both emoji and

stickers are used to express emotional reactions and (especially when standing alone in a

message) non-verbal actions. But whereas emoji often signal tone, stickers were used more to

illustrate (‘mention’) textual content and to ‘riff’ or elaborate playfully on other graphicons.

Stickers were also much less frequent (about 8% of graphicons, compared to 69% for emoji).

Herring and Dainas (2017) speculate that this was due, in part, to stickers having been introduced

on Facebook more recently, but also to stickers being larger and more complex than may be

ideal.

In terms of popularity, stickers appear to be in the second phase of evolution (high phase)

in Asia, and their popularity continues to rise. In the West, we posit that stickers are in the latter

part of the early phase. On Facebook, they are no longer a novelty, but they have yet to achieve

extremely widespread adoption. Assuming a Western perspective, and based on the findings of

research reviewed in the previous sections, we provisionally situate the relative position of each

of the three graphicon types along a broad evolutionary continuum as in Figure 2.5

In a recent Taiwanese study, Wang (2016) similarly suggests that “emoticons”6 have

evolved from “text-based” [ASCII emoticons] to “emoticons” [emoji] to “Line stickers/Facebook

Messenger stickers/Kakao Talk emoticons” [stickers]. However, aside from the fact that the

different types were introduced at different points in time, Wang offers no comparative or

functional evidence to support her trajectory. The present study seeks such evidence by

comparing the use and functions of emoji and stickers for English speakers.

Methods

The methodology employed in this study is an adaptation of the apparent-time method in


sociolinguistics, which considers patterns of usage, as well as factors such as social distance and

attitude, and makes use of interview and survey methods. In the following sections, we describe

how we interviewed and surveyed usage patterns of Messenger users.

The interview study

To gain initial insight into sticker and emoji use, in August 2014, we identified and

recruited English speakers who had sent at least one sticker and one emoji using Messenger on

their iOS or Android phone in the previous month. We then sent these people an email survey

asking a series of standard screener questions (ensuring that they did not work in the tech

industry, verifying their age and gender, etc.) and inviting them to participate in research

interviews. Thirteen active Messenger users responded and took part in semi-structured

interviews at the Facebook campus in Menlo Park, California, 9 male and 4 female, aged 18-47

(M=29, SD=9.5). All interview participants lived in the vicinity of Menlo Park and signed

Facebook’s informed consent form.

The interviewees were asked to scroll through their conversations, first with close, then

distant relationships. As they scrolled, they were asked why they had sent specific stickers and

emoji as each appeared. Toward the end of the interview, they were asked to summarize their

uses of stickers and emoji. Each interview lasted about one hour. The interviews were conducted

by the first author and video- and audio-recorded for note taking and analysis purposes.

The recorded interviews were thematically analyzed to discover patterns and gain insight

into sticker and emoji use. An inductive process was followed, whereby key words, concepts,

and reflections were first noted while reviewing the recordings; these were then clustered and

refined in successive stages as themes emerged. The resultant themes were then cross-checked

against each relevant example to assure fit. Themes centered around reasons for use of


emoji/stickers; the closeness of the person they were sent to; and the mood the interviewee was

in when they sent the emoji or sticker; as well as how the interviewee thought emoji and stickers

differed and what they felt the limitations were of stickers, in particular. The themes were

developed by the first author and reviewed by the second author.

Findings

On average, each interviewee identified 1 emoticon, 1.8 emoji, and 2.4 stickers in the

messages they had recently sent; 70 graphicon sends were identified in total.

Reasons for use. The interviewees reported that emoji are used to modify a textual

message, whereas stickers are more self-contained. Expressing emotion was the most common

reason given for sending an emoji or a sticker, especially for emoji. Stickers express emotion, but

they are more intense and louder than emoji due to their size.

Stickers are usually their own self-contained message. Whereas emojis, I’ll add them

into most of my messages to convey emotions, but because they’re smaller and can be

put with words, they’re easier to use. Whereas stickers you can’t use them with

words, so you only use them for their size and intensity. (Male, P12)

Reasons that were given for using emoji specifically include making the message more fun

and colorful; strengthening a verbal message; softening its tone; to clarify that something is a

joke; and to add cuteness to a message. In other words, most usages for emoji revolve around

modifying the textual message itself.

For stickers, interviewees mentioned all of the same usages as listed above, especially to

add cuteness. Stickers used to modify a textual message, though, generally did so in a louder,

more intense way.

[Stickers] are for hyperbole, melodrama…they’re over the top. (Female, P6)


Both stickers and emoji also fulfilled miscellaneous functions, such as to acknowledge receipt of

a message, to respond with speed and convenience, and to send a graphicon in response to

another graphicon, such as in a “sticker war.” The latter sometimes resulted in a string of back-

and-forth sticker exchanges riffing off of the same topic or emotion (e.g., a dog with heart eyes,

followed by a girl holding a big heart, followed by a bunny blowing lots of kisses. etc.).

In addition, interviewees mentioned more autonomous and self-contained sticker uses. For

instance, several interviewees mentioned that they used stickers to express their personality, e.g.,

through sending a nerdy-looking face with glasses to express that the sender is a nerd, or a cat

character to “express my inner cat” (Figure 3). None of the interviewees mentioned personality

expression when describing emoji use.

Some interviewees also preferred stickers for expressing specific meanings and behaviors

that were not available in emoji. For example, one male interviewee pointed to a sticker of a

sleepy-looking dog holding a coffee cup that he had sent to his girlfriend that morning.

It kind of reminds the other person how you would act if you were there in person, and

that’s what we really like about stickers … An emoji doesn’t really have that

expression. (Male, P1)

Finally, interviewees reported that stickers were better for making others laugh, being

playful or flirty, starting and ending conversations, and relating with the receiver by sending

something only they would understand. These are all stand-alone usages, rather than modifying

the message. Table 1 summarizes the reasons for use that emerged from the interviews.


Conditions for use.

Mood at time of send. Most of the interviewees said they send stickers and emoji when in a

good mood, and for less serious conversations. However, emoji can also be used when feeling

mildly upset, or for somewhat serious conversations, because they are not as intense as stickers.

I’m still gonna be less likely [to use an emoji] if I’m depressed or in a bad mood, but

maybe a little more likely than to use a sticker. (Male, P7)

I’ll use [stickers] in more light conversations like if it’s a joke between me and my

friends. (Female, P3)

Closeness to recipient. Stickers and emoji are both used in close relationships. However,

stickers are used more in closer relationships, and emoji are more appropriate than stickers for

distant relationships (Figure 4). One interviewee explained:

For less close friends I would more likely use emojis. Stickers come out sometimes as

loud and overly expressive which I wouldn’t do in person with a distant friend. (M P1)

The mood and closeness findings mentioned above are explored quantitatively further

below.

Reasons for non-use. At the end of the interviews, we asked the interviewees about the

limitations of stickers and why they did not use them more often. Four people thought stickers

were too cute, playful, feminine, or childish. Relatedly, five of the nine male interviewees said

that stickers are for females or that they contain aspects they perceived as feminine. One

commented that “stickers are really girly.” Yet, when messaging female friends, these men all

sent stickers.

Two people thought stickers were too big. Others thought stickers were either too specific

or too complicated. One interviewee preferred the stickers in the Line app because she perceived


them to be less complicated and character-driven, which made them less distracting from the

meaning they expressed. These comments provide insight into users’ attitudes toward stickers,

which in turn affect their likelihood of sticker use.

The survey study

Studies of spoken language change often employ survey methods (e.g, Labov, 1963). In

online research, surveys are possible on a much larger scale. To verify the usages and conditions

identified in our interview study, we conducted an online survey that asked how stickers and

emoji are used and in what conditions. All survey data were anonymized and aggregated.

Participants

To recruit English speaking Messenger users, in September 2014 a standard survey

invitation was broadcast to Facebook users above their News Feed on Facebook’s web interface,

asking if they would like to share their opinion. This invitation came directly from Facebook as

an official notice, and clicking on the invitation took participants to the full survey screen. The

survey received 2275 responses: 872 sticker senders (Age: M=32.82 SD=14.29, 40% female)

and 1403 emoji senders (Age: M=26.83 SD=11.48, 37% female). Sticker senders qualified for

the survey if they had sent a Messenger sticker in the previous week but no emoji in the past two

weeks. Emoji senders qualified if they had sent a Messenger emoji in the past week but no

stickers in the past two weeks. We adopted this two-week constraint so that participants would

not be confused about which graphicon they were referring to in the survey. We set the

graphicon send window to one week, however, so that participants would be more likely to

remember why they sent that particular graphicon. Aside from these graphicon usage

requirements and the English-language Messenger requirements, no other constraints were put


on recruitment. Not every question was completed by every respondent, so degrees of freedom in

reported statistics represent the number of responses available for each test.

Survey design

The instructions for the survey asked the respondents to locate the most recent Messenger

sticker/emoji on their mobile phone and answer questions about it. We had them describe what

the sticker or emoji was, as a way of double checking that they were referring to the appropriate

graphicon (emoji or sticker) when answering the survey questions. Responses that clearly

referred to the wrong graphicon type (less than 1% of the data) were not included in the analyses.

The survey asked why the respondents used emoji or stickers, and under what conditions

they were sent. A list of reasons for sticker or emoji use was compiled based on the reasons

given by participants in the interview study (see Table 1). We asked survey respondents to locate

the last sticker or emoji they sent in Messenger, then to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (not at all well to

extremely well) “how well does each of the following reasons represent why you sent this

particular emoji/sticker?” Last, we asked questions about respondents’ mood at the time of send

(“how did you personally feel at the time you sent this emoji/sticker?” Very negative to very

positive) and how close they were to the recipient (“how close do you feel to the person (or

people) that you sent this emoji/sticker to?” Not at all close to extremely close).

Survey results

Reasons for sticker vs. emoji usage. Independent t-tests were run to compare groups

(emoji vs. sticker) for how well each usage represented why the respondent sent the graphicon.

These results are summarized in Figure 5. Emoji were significantly preferred for expressing

emotion, emphasis, and softening the tone of a textual message (p<.05). This is consistent with

our interview findings that emoji were better for expressing emotion (less intense) and for


modifying the textual message. Stickers were significantly preferred for conveying something

specific, starting or ending a conversation, expressing personality, making others laugh, making

messages more fun, and adding cuteness, as well as for reciprocal exchanges of stickers (p<.05).

This supports the interview findings that stickers, too, can modify a message (such as when

adding cuteness and making the message more fun), but they are distinct in self-contained usages

(such as conveying something specific, starting/ending conversations, expressing personality,

and making the recipient laugh).

Conditions for sticker vs. emoji usage. We asked the survey respondents about their

mood when they sent the graphicon, and how close a relationship they had with the recipient.

Both stickers and emoji were sent in a good mood, especially stickers, although differences in

mood were not significant, t(1633)=1.56, p=.12 (Stickers: M= 4.33, SD=.94, Emoji: M=4.25,

SD=.93). On a 5-point scale, from very negative to very positive, 4 was somewhat positive, so

these averages are between somewhat and very positive. Stickers were sent in significantly closer

relationships than emoji, t(1906)=5.24, p<.001, d=.23 using Levene’s correction for

heterogeneity of variance (Stickers: M=4.00, SD=1.09, Emoji: M=3.74, SD=1.18). On a 5-point

scale from not at all close to extremely close, 4 was very close, and 3 was somewhat close, so

both emoji and stickers were sent to close relationships, albeit stickers more so than emoji.

Discussion

This study set out to describe and compare present-day emoji and sticker use. Specifically,

we asked: To what extent do stickers and emoji share functions or differ, and under what

conditions is each used? What evidence, if any, can be inferred of the evolutionary stage of each

graphicon type? Below we discuss our findings in relation to these questions.


Although our interview subjects identified more functions for stickers than for emoji (Table

1), the survey responses (Figure 5) suggest that the differences in the reasons reported by

Messenger users for emoji and sticker use are more a matter of degree than of kind. Compared to

emoji, stickers are more fun, cute, humorous, specific, and expressive of personality. Moreover,

emoji typically modify text, whereas stickers more often communicate self-contained

propositions. This can be traced in part to the larger size of stickers: They cannot appear on the

same line as the preceding text, unlike emoji, while their size permits a greater degree of detail

and specificity, enabling them to communicate an action or concept on their own, without the

need for supporting text. Both graphicon types, but especially stickers, tend to be sent in a good

mood (positivity) and to close recipients (strong network ties).

These results reinforce previous findings as regards the emotionality, positivity, and

playfulness/non-seriousness of emoji (e.g., Kelly & Watts, 2015) and indicate that stickers

possess these qualities to an even greater extent. Along with their relative newness compared to

emoji, their size and specificity makes them more intense. They can seem “loud,” “overly

expressive,” and hyperbolic, and they are used in more intimate relationships,7 where their

intensity is less likely to be misconstrued as inappropriate. This parallels the finding by Ganster

et al. (2012) that emoji are more intense – have a greater impact on the reader’s mood – than

emoticons. In other words, stickers are pragmatically marked for emotional intensity, positivity,

and playfulness relative to emoji, where markedness refers to “the state of standing out as

unusual or divergent in comparison to a more common or regular form” (Wikipedia, 2019).

Newer forms tend to be more marked than older, more familiar forms.

Conversely, we found that emoji are less playful than stickers, can be used in semi-serious

messages, and are more likely to be used in less close relationships than has been previously


reported (cf. Kelly & Watts, 2015). This evidence suggests that emoji are becoming

pragmatically unmarked. That is, as they become more commonplace, their specific pragmatic

meanings of playfulness, emotionality, and indexing social intimacy are starting to weaken,

consistent with the tendency for words expressing strong emotions to bleach over time (Jurafsky,

2014).

Considered together, the above evidence simultaneously supports and suggests refinements

to the evolutionary trajectory in Figure 2. Table 2 identifies seven stages in this trajectory and

indicates where each (Western) graphicon type is situated. The table synthesizes knowledge

gained through the present study from multiple sources. The findings for emoticons and the

relationship of emoticons to emoji are based on previous studies reviewed earlier. The usage

findings for emoji and stickers derive from questions asked in the interviews and survey, and the

stages for emoji and stickers are our interpretations of observations from the present study in

relation to the literature reviewed earlier on language change.

Frequency of use and shifts in pragmatic function show that emoticons and emoji have

progressed along the trajectory in Table 2, and suggest that stickers represent a continuation of

the same trajectory. ASCII emoticons have passed through all the stages in Table 2, with the

exception of ‘displacing older forms,’ since emoticons were the first graphicon type. As they

rose in popularity, the emotional intensity of emoticons weakened, and they took on secondary,

conventional functions, such as punctuation (Provine et al., 2007), consistent with the tendency

for iconic forms to become more arbitrary and symbolic with repeated use (cf. Burling, 1999).

Emoticon use has been declining for several years. Meanwhile, emoji are currently very popular

(e.g., Prada et al., 2018); they overlap in function with emoticons (Herring & Dainas, 2017); and

they are displacing emoticons in use in social media (Pavalanathan & Eisenstein, 2016),


evidence that they have reached the high phase. Further, emoji have conventionalized as tone

indicators of accompanying textual utterances (Herring & Dainas, 2017). To this, the present

study adds the comparative evidence that emoji are starting to undergo pragmatic unmarking

relative to stickers, bringing emoji to stage 6. Their frequency of use has not yet started to

decline, however.

As for stickers, we know from observational evidence that they have increased in use on

Messenger since sticker sets were first made available for use in messages. Our interview

evidence suggests that attitudes toward stickers are still quite variable; some people commented

that stickers are too big and complicated; others, especially men, said they are too cute and

“girly,” although they used stickers themselves. We also found extensive overlap between sticker

and emoji functions, suggesting that stickers have progressed as far as stage 4. Beyond that, there

are hints as to what the future might bring. Our interview participants sent more stickers than

emoji, hinting at possible future displacement (stage 5). Both our interview and survey data

showed that emoji are currently preferred for softening the tone of a textual message due to the

larger size and intensity of stickers, suggesting potential ways the design of stickers could be

leveraged to soften message tone. If stickers do eventually take on this conventional function,

they will move further along the graphicon life-cycle trajectory to stage 6.8

Further evidence in support of this trajectory comes from Asia, where graphicon evolution

is more advanced (Wang, 2016). Emoji and stickers were first introduced in Japan, stickers by a

Korean company. Over a decade ago, Markman and Oshima (2007) reported that the use of

emoticons or kaomoji as punctuation was more conspicuous in Japan than the US, due to their

highly specific and conventionalized meanings. Now stickers are more popular than emoticons

or emoji in some Asian contexts, including Chinese mobile messaging.9 If Asian sticker usage


would show signs of conventionalization or pragmatic unmarking, it would further support the

evolutionary trajectory proposed here. The case of the Chinese woman who reported using

stickers with her boss (Zhou et al., 2017), a non-intimate social relation, is suggestive in this

regard.

As stickers increase their presence worldwide, it has been predicted that they will become

“as synonymous with messaging as the humble smiley” (Russell, 2013, n.p.). However, despite

the trajectory they are on, several factors suggest that stickers may not displace emoji in contexts

such as Facebook Messenger any time soon, at least not without design modifications. Attitude

plays a role in users’ willingness to adopt new communicative forms, and our interviewees

identified a number of limitations of stickers, including being childish, overly-specific, and too

large. The larger size of stickers limits their position in a message, making it harder for them to

modify the tone of adjacent text or appear together with other stickers in linear sequences. Of

course, stickers could be designed to be smaller. To distinguish them from emoji, they could be

personalized beyond what is possible with emoji (e.g., skin tone), to make the experience more

intimately about the sender. If they maintain their current size, they could be designed to allow

the user to add text to them so that they could substitute for text messages, as is already the case

for Chinese stickers (Ma, 2016). Less specific, less cute, and/or more ‘adult’ stickers could also

be created, such that they could be sent to platonic friends, when not in a good mood, or in

conversations that are not always so lighthearted. Such changes could potentially increase the use

of stickers at the expense of emoji. However, another factor inhibiting the spread of stickers is

that emoji can be used across operating systems and apps with minor differences, while stickers

are typically app-specific, resulting in a more constrained distribution.


Limitations and directions for future research

A limitation of the survey data is that we included a sampling constraint to reduce

participant confusion about which graphicon they had sent. We ensured that they had only sent

one type of graphicon in the past two weeks so that survey responses would be more accurate.

However, graphicon usages might differ for an unconstrained sample. Further, the data we

analyzed from the survey responses reflect self-reported emoji and sticker use, and may not

accurately represent the respondents’ actual use. Still, the survey results were generally

consistent with the interview findings in terms of mood, closeness to recipient, and reasons for

use, which lends validity to the self-report data.

Another limitation is that our study explored graphicon use by English-speaking users;

however, there are likely cultural and national differences beyond the scope of this study that are

important to disentangle in future work (see, e.g., Ge & Herring, 2018 on emoji use in China). In

particular, this study underscores a need for comparative studies of Asian and Western graphicon

use to identify cultural differences as well as evolutionary trends. Variation in graphicon use

across platforms should also be explored.

In this study we considered emoji and stickers as broad classes of elements. However,

instances of each likely vary in reasons for use, mood at time of use, and relationship to the

recipient. For instance, we observed in the interview study that unhappy emoji (frowns, crying

faces) were used more with distant relationships, and playful and flirtatious emoji (winks, kisses)

were used more with closer relationships. A challenge in analyzing the data at this level,

however, is reducing stickers to a set of functional categories – such as unhappy, flirtatious, etc.

– due to their specificity. At the same time, this degree of specificity is an important

characteristic of stickers that distinguishes them from emoji. As such, it merits systematic study.


Finally, this study used principles of language change to inform the design of an in-depth,

mixed-methods study to guide the identification of evolutionary trends in CMC. However,

although we make claims about graphicon evolution, this is not a longitudinal study that provides

direct evidence of change over time. Rather, trends involving emoji and stickers were inferred in

apparent time (Bailey, 2002) from interview and survey data by analogy with previously attested

trends for emoticons and emoji, informed by principles of stylistic and semantic (pragmatic)

change. That said, longitudinal research is highly desirable to test the evolutionary claims made

here. It is also possible that graphicon evolution has changed or progressed since our data were

collected in 2014; thus additional studies are needed to monitor the evolutionary trajectory

moving forward.

Conclusions

Our study of English-speaking Messenger users found considerable functional overlap

between emoji and stickers, with differences being mainly ones of degree: Stickers are more

pragmatically marked for expressivity, intensity, and intimacy. The specificity of stickers also

lends itself to self-contained uses and self-representation. But some users commented negatively

on the size of stickers, their complexity and specificity, and others found them childish and

overly feminine. Based on these findings, we suggested possible design modifications that could

increase sticker use.

The findings of this study have implications for the future of stickers on Western platforms

beyond Facebook Messenger. We proposed that emoji and stickers are following an overarching

evolutionary trajectory like the one that is already well advanced for emoticons and emoji. As

part of this trajectory, the highly marked playful and emotive meanings of the older graphicon

type in each case weaken and take on secondary, less emotional functions. Another potential


outcome of this evolution is a blurring or convergence of the older and the newer types. This

already occurs with emoticons input as ASCII characters that convert automatically to, and

appear indistinguishable from, emoji on social media platforms such as Facebook and

Messenger. Similarly, emoji are automatically rendered in a larger size on Messenger when they

appear alone on a line, causing them to resemble stickers. This is another mechanism by which a

graphicon type may overtake another, that is, by merging with it and ultimately subsuming it.

The fact that the displacement of emoji by stickers is further advanced in Asia lends

additional credence to our claim that a similar evolution is taking place in the West. At the same

time, cultural differences must be considered. The popularity of anime cartoons in Asia and the

difficulty of inputting words in Asian languages through mobile phones predispose Asian users

to like and use stickers (Ma, 2016; Rezabek & Cochenour, 1998). Absent these cultural supports,

and given the limitations identified in this study, it is possible that stickers will remain a

secondary graphicon type in Western mobile and web-based media, overlapping in function with,

but never entirely displacing, emoji. Thus, the future of stickers, rather than being predetermined

by evolution, is subject to the decisions of designers and social media developers, as well as

cultural factors.

References

Bailey, G. (2002). Real and apparent time. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling (Eds.),

The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 312-332). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Burling, R. (1999). Motivation, conventionalization, and arbitrariness in the origin of language.

In B. J. King (Ed.), The origins of language: What nonhuman primates can tell us (pp.

307-350). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.


Danesi, M. (2016). The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet.

London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

de Seta, G. (2018). Biaoqing: The circulation of emoticons, emoji, stickers, and custom images

on Chinese digital media platforms. First Monday, 23(9).

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i9.9391

Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and

illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249-268.

Flynn, K. (2014, October 14). Now you can put stickers in your Facebook comments. HuffPost

Tech. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/facebook-stickers-

comments_n_5982546.html

Ganster, T., Eimler, S. C., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Same but different!? The differential

influence of smilies and emoticons on person perception. CyberPsychology, Behavior &

Social Networking, 15(4), 226-230.

Ge, J., & Herring, S. C. (2018). Communicative functions of emoji sequences on Sina Weibo.

First Monday, 23(11) (5 November). Retrieved from

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9413/7610

Haiman, J. (1991). From V/2 to subject clitics: Evidence from Northern Italian. In E. C. Traugott

& B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Focus on theoretical and

methodological issues (pp. 135-158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Herring, S. C., & Dainas, A. (2017). ‘Nice picture comment!’ Graphicons in Facebook comment

threads. In Proceedings of the Fiftieth Hawai’i International Conference on System

Sciences (pp. 2185-2194). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i9.9391


Jezouit, B. (2017, July 11). Stickers are the new emoji. Envato Blog. Retrieved from

https://envato.com/blog/stickers-new-emoji/

Jurafsky, D. (2014). The language of food: A linguist reads the menu. New York: WW Norton &

Company.

Kelly, R., & Watts, L. (2015). Characterising the inventive appropriation of emoji as relationally

meaningful in mediated close personal relationships. In Experiences of Technology

Appropriation: Unanticipated Users, Usage, Circumstances, and Design. University of

Bath. [No publisher.]

Krohn, F. (2004). A generational approach to using emoticons as non-verbal communication.

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43, 321-328.

Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia University Press.

Lee, Y-C. (2017). Effects of branded e-stickers on purchase intentions: The perspective of social

capital theory. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 397-411.

Lee, J. Y., Hong, N., Kim, S., Oh, J., & Lee, J. (2016). Smiley face: Why we use emoticon

stickers in mobile messaging. In Proc. 18th International Conference on Human-

Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (pp. 760-766). New

York: ACM.

Lo, S. K. (2008). The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated

communication. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(5), 595-597.

Ma, X. (2016). From Internet memes to emoticon engineering: Insights from the Baozou comic

phenomenon in China. In HCI 2016 (pp. 15–27). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39513-5_2


Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation.

Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339-384.

Novak, P. K., Smailovic, J., Sluban, J., & Mozetic, I. (2015). Sentiment of emojis. PloS One.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144296

O’Donoghue, J. J. (2016, September 2017). Emoji: The evolution of emoticons. The Japan

Times. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2016/09/17/digital/emoji-

evolution-emoticons/#.WPBDoRLytPM

Parkes, M. B. (2016). Pause and effect: An introduction to the history of punctuation in the

West. London: Routledge.

Pavalanathan, U., & Eisenstein, J. (2016). More emojis, less :) The competition for paralinguistic

function in microblog writing. First Monday, 21(11).

Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. L., Garrido, M. V., Lopes, D., Cavalheiro, B., & Gaspar, R. (2018).

Motives, frequency and attitudes toward emoji and emoticon use. Telematics and

Informatics, 35(7), 1925-1934.

Provine, R. R., Spencer, R. J., & Mandell, D. L. (2007). Emotional expression online: Emoticons

punctuate website text messages. J. Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 299-307.

Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H., & Spencer, A. (2009). Linguistics: An

Introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rezabek, L. L., & Cochenour, J. J. (1998). Visual cues in computer-mediated communication:

Supplementing text with emoticons. Journal of Visual Literacy, 18, 201-215.

Russell, J. (2013, July 12). Stickers: From Japanese craze to global mobile messaging

phenomenon. Retrieved from

https://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/07/12/stickers/#.tnw_OydN6oLa

https://thenextweb/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2016/09/17/digital/emoji-evolution-emoticons/#.WPBDoRLytPM

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2016/09/17/digital/emoji-evolution-emoticons/#.WPBDoRLytPM

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144296


Schmid-Isler, S. (2000, January). The language of digital genres – A semiotic investigation of

style and iconology on the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-9). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.

Skovholt, K., Grønning, A., & Kankaanranta, A. (2014). The communicative functions of

emoticons in workplace e-mails: :-). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

19(4), 780-797.

Statista (2019). Most popular global mobile messenger apps as of January 2019, based on

number of monthly active users. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/

Tagg, C. (2015). Language, business and superdiversity: A report on social media across case

studies. Working Papers in Translanguaging and Translation, Paper 6. Retrieved from

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tlang/index.aspx

Wang, S. S. (2016). More than words? The effect of line character sticker use on intimacy in the

mobile communication environment. Social Science Computer Review, 34(4), 456–478.

Wattention. (2015, November 28). Western emoticons vs. Japanese kaomoji. Retrieved from

http://www.wattention.com/western-emoticons-vs-japanese-kaomoji/

Wikipedia. (2017). Sticker (Messaging). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticker

Wikipedia. (2019). Markedness. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness

Zhou, R., Hentschel, J., & Kumar, N. (2017). Goodbye text, hello emoji:Mobile communication

on WeChat in China. In Proceedings of CHI 2017. Retrieved from http://www.

tandem.gatech.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CHI17-Zhou-

GoodbyeTextHelloEmoji.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness

http://www.wattention.com/western-emoticons-vs-japanese-kaomoji/


Notes

1. Graphicons on Facebook include emoticons, emoji, stickers, animated GIFs, image macros,

and video clips as they are used in CMC (Herring & Dainas, 2017). This study focuses on

emoji and stickers (and emoticons, for comparison). These types share general forms and

functions that set them apart from the other graphicon types.

2. The ‘crying tears of joy’ emoji; http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/press-releases/

announcing-the-oxford-dictionaries-word-of-the-year-2015/, accessed June 14, 2016.

3. While horizontal [sideways] emoticons like :) and :( are used more in Western countries,

kaomoji (literally kao ‘face’ + moji ‘character’), or vertical emoticons such as ˆ_ˆ and >_<,

are more popular among Asian users (Lu et al., 2016). The first kaomoji was a user

innovation that appeared on the Japanese ASCII Net in 1986 (Wattention, 2015).

4. These include Viber, WeChat, WhatsApp, MessageMe, Kik, Line, and Kakao Talk. Y-C. Lee

(2017) estimated that over one billion users send e-stickers daily on Line alone.

5. This is an idealized representation that is not intended to reflect empirical data.

6. In Chinese, the word biaoqing ‘expression’ refers to emoticons, emoji, and stickers (de Seta,

2018). Asian scholars sometimes use ‘emoticons’ in English to refer to all three.

7. Wang (2016) found that the use of stickers can also actively enhance perceptions of intimacy,

especially in positive communicative contexts.

8. There is less evidence of conventionalization and pragmatic unmarking for emoji and

(especially) stickers than for emoticons, because emoticons are older and have had more time

to evolve. Nonetheless, the available evidence is suggestive that similar processes are taking

place for emoji and stickers, especially when compared with their usage in Asia.

9. Ying Tang, personal communication, September 30, 2018.


Figure 1. Examples of ‘laugh,’ ‘wink,’ ‘cry,’ and ‘kiss’ emoticons, emoji, and stickers on Facebook

Figure 2. Three phases of graphicon evolution

Figure 3. Stickers used to express the sender’s personality


Figure 4. Emoticon, emoji, and sticker use by closeness of interviewee to recipient(1=distant, 5=intimate)

Figure 5. Sticker vs. emoji usages. Asterisks represent significant differences (p<.05)

Table 1. Graphicon usage themes that emerged from the interviews

Emoji Usage Themes Sticker Usage ThemesExpress emotion Express emotion

Emphasize the message Emphasize the messageSoften the message Soften the message

Clarify a joke Clarify a jokeMake conversation fun Make conversation fun

Add cuteness Add cutenessAcknowledgment Acknowledgment

Speed or convenience Speed or convenienceReciprocal exchange Reciprocal exchange

Convey something specificMake others laugh

Relate with the receiverBe playful or flirty

Start or end conversationExpress personality

Table 2. Phases and stages in the life-cycle of graphiconsPhase Stage Usage Emoticons Emoji Stickers


Early Phase1. Initial innovation Pragmatically marked:

emotional; playful, informal use w/ close

relationships

Pragmatically unmarked: less

emotionally intense; can be used in semi-formal messages w/ distant relationships

2. Highly variable use

High Phase

3. Rise in popularity / frequency of use

4. Overlap in meaning/ function with older form(s)

5. Displacing older form(s) n/a

Decline / Convention-alization

6. Conventionalization, bleaching, broadening

7. Declining popularity / frequency of use

About the Authors

Artie Konrad [[email protected]] is a mixed-method UX Researcher at Facebook who is

interested in how technology can support memory, communication, and well-being.

Susan C. Herring [[email protected]] is Professor of Information Science and Linguistics and

Director of the Center for Computer-Mediated Communication at Indiana University,

Bloomington. She is interested in language and discourse mediated by digital technologies,

including discourse mediated by graphics, smart speakers, and telepresence robots.

David Choi [[email protected]] is a User Research Manager at Quora. His research interests

include mobile messaging, group communication, and computer supported cooperative work.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

abstract - artiekonrad.com€¦ · web viewartie konrad. facebook. susan c. herring* indiana...

Documents